= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Cultivating our own gardens - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
If you're optimizing, you're a form of utilitarian. Even if all you're optimizing is "minimize the number of times Kant's principles X, Y, and Z are violated".
This makes the utilitarian/non-utilitarian distinction useless, which I think it is. Everybody is either a utilitarian of some sort, a nihilist, or a conservative, mystic, or gambler saying "Do it the way we've always done it / Leave it up to God / Roll the dice". It's important to recognize this, so that we can get on with talking about "utility functions" without someone protesting that utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed.
The distinction I was drawing could be phrased as between explicit utilitarianism (trying to compute the utility function) and implicit utilitarianism (constructing mechanisms that you expect will maximize a utility function that is implicit in the action of a system but not easily extracted from it and formalized).
I think what you're calling utilitarianism is typically called consequentialism. Utilitarianism usually connotes something like what Mill or Bentham had in mind - determine each individual's utility function, then contruct a global utility function that is the sum/average of the individuals. I say connotes because no matter how you define the term, this seems to be what people think when they hear it, so they bring up the tired old cached objections to Mill's utilitarianism that just don't apply to what we're typically talking about here.